Why do overall econ stats seem to have nothing to do with...

[Trithereon]

This is a thread for discussing stats that, in general, don't behave anything like they should, due to either design flaws in the stat engine itself or ignorance by issue editors about what words mean. As an example, there is currently a major disconnect between how the game calculates life expectancy and how it calculates leading causes of death.

As my signature hints, I tend to notice this most often with authoritarianism. So, let's talk about what authoritarianism is and what it isn't.

Authoritarianism IS:
- government interference in the private lives of citizens
- government interference in the economy, either through regulations or through taxes and spending

What authoritarianism is NOT:
- the absence of democracy
- government holding its own employees to a certain code of conduct
- government protecting the life, liberty, and property of its citizens (example: banning neonatal genital mutilation)
- citizens defending their own life, liberty, and property against trespassers, squatters, illegal immigrants, etc. by whatever means they deem appropriate
- government making rules about the legitimate use of public property (example: arresting people when they block public roads as a form of protest)

What else is there?

[Trotterdam]

What authoritarianism is NOT:
- government protecting the life, liberty, and property of its citizens (example: banning neonatal genital mutilation)

According to your signature:

the CORRECT way to handle authoritarianism: it should decrease every time government stays out of something, regardless of what individuals do to each other.

So which is it?

- government making rules about the legitimate use of public property (example: arresting people when they block public roads as a form of protest)

The government's insistence on keeping public property public (and thus under its control) rather than privatizing it is authoritarian, according to your own definition:

Authoritarianism IS:
- government interference in the economy, either through regulations or through taxes and spending

[Ratateague]

This is a thread for discussing stats that, in general, don't behave anything like they should, due to either design flaws in the stat engine itself or ignorance by issue editors about what words mean. As an example, there is currently a major disconnect between how the game calculates life expectancy and how it calculates leading causes of death.

I think your premise is mistaken in that you are claiming these stats to be objectively incorrect when it is really your opinion. You may not like the way these values are characterized, they may conflict with your worldview, but that does not make them wrong. For instance, the pie charts are a representation of certain decisions and values in your nation, but they are not involved with the calculation of the national stats themselves. In NS, depending on how your people die, it has little to do with the amount of years they typically live. It's not the proportion of causes of death to others that really demonstrates how much it leads to death or longevity shortening. If how you answer issues foster pervasive negative conditions that affect the population on a massive scale, such as a poor environment, toxic gasses, irradiation, etc, then yes, it will reflect that through causes of death and significant impacts on your lifespan, death rate, weather, environmental beauty, charmlessness, or whatever other stats indicate that. However, some causes of death on NS, like animal attacks, acts of god, or getting lost, are misnomers that aren't really an impact on your lifespan (senescence), but show, humorously, what your national priorities and consequences are.

As my signature hints, I tend to notice this most often with authoritarianism. So, let's talk about what authoritarianism is and what it isn't.

Okay, let's start with some dictionary definitions of what authoritarianism is.

1. the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.
2. lack of concern for the wishes or opinions of others.

1. of or relating to a governmental or political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people.

2. favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom.

Authoritarianism, principle of blind submission to authority, as opposed to individual freedom of thought and action. In government, authoritarianism denotes any political system that concentrates power in the hands of a leader or a small elite that is not constitutionally responsible to the body of the people.

I would post the Wikipedia definitions, but there are many, and they would just run on and on and I'm trying to keep this brief.

Authoritarianism IS:
- government interference in the private lives of citizens

That's a very shaky definition. "Interference" is open to wide, subjective, personal interpretation.

- government interference in the economy, either through regulations or through taxes and spending

No, that's Economic Freedom and Freedom From Taxation, which indicates those with reductions and negative values.

What authoritarianism is NOT:
- autocracy

Actually, it is.

Autocracy
n. Government by a single person having unlimited power; despotism.
n. A country or state that is governed by a single person with unlimited power.

1. government in which one person has uncontrolled or unlimited authority over others; the government or power of an absolute monarch.
2. unlimited authority, power, or influence of one person in any group.

An autocracy is a system of government in which supreme power (social and political) is concentrated in the hands of one person, whose decisions are subject to neither external legal restraints nor regularized mechanisms of popular control

Note the connection to the previous definitions.

- government holding its own employees to a certain code of conduct
- government protecting the life, liberty, and property of its citizens (example: banning neonatal genital mutilation)
- citizens defending their own life, liberty, and property against trespassers, squatters, illegal immigrants, etc. by whatever means they deem appropriate
- government making rules about the legitimate use of public property (example: arresting people when they block public roads as a form of protest)

I won't pretend to know exactly what NS considers to be an authoritarian act or how they calculate its impacts, and I've been here quite a few years. But you better believe the staff behind the scenes review these stats and issues and give them the scrutiny and debate they deserve. They're not perfect, but a hell of a lot better than the mob of new players that consistently come along, challenging everything without taking the time to familiarize themselves with the issues and mechanics, proclaiming to be the authority on such matters, then disappearing.

[Trithereon]

So which is it?

Both. The two statements are not mutually exclusive.

The government's insistence on keeping public property public (and thus under its control) rather than privatizing it is authoritarian, according to your own definition

No it isn't. It's also not even the same issue.


Rat: okay, you got me on the actual meaning of "autocracy". I was assuming that the NS definition - any government that rules without regard for the will of the people -was correct. I won't be making that mistake again. Almost everything else you said was either wrong, or based on a faulty assumption. In particular, my own conversations with certain powers-that-be demonstrated that they don't put even 1/10th as much thought into these stats as they want everyone to think.

[Trotterdam]

Both. The two statements are not mutually exclusive.

Yes, they are.

The government "allowing neonatal genital mutilation" is the government "staying out of something, regardless of what individuals do to each other", and the government banning the same is the government not staying out.

According to your signature, banning it would be the authoritarian option, according to your post, banning it would not be the authoritarian option.

[Ratateague]

Almost everything else you said was either wrong, or based on a faulty assumption. In particular, my own conversations with certain powers-that-be demonstrated that they don't put even 1/10th as much thought into these stats as they want everyone to think.

Says the guy that wasn't even here long enough to witness the rejiggering of the Authoritarianism stat, after dozens of minor stat changes and major overhauls. And you're already whining to a bunch of editors and coders to change all that? Do you really think that's going to happen? I've gone through these conversations you've claimed to have had, and in nearly every instance, someone has given you a reasonable explanation why the effect turned out that way. You just don't like the answer. Just like you didn't like my answers. That's all there is to it.

[Trithereon]

Both. The two statements are not mutually exclusive.

Yes, they are...

According to your signature, banning it would be the authoritarian option

Again, wrong. Read very, very carefully and apply basic logic.

[Trithereon]

Says the guy that wasn't even here long enough to witness the rejiggering of the Authoritarianism stat, after dozens of minor stat changes and major overhauls.

You have no idea how long I've been around.

i've gone through these conversations you've claimed to have had, and in nearly every instance, someone has given you a reasonable explanation why the effect turned out that way

No, I was given nonsensical and insane answers, and when I explained why they were nonsensical and insane, I was told to STFU.

[Post War America]

This is a thread for discussing stats that, in general, don't behave anything like they should, due to either design flaws in the stat engine itself or ignorance by issue editors about what words mean. As an example, there is currently a major disconnect between how the game calculates life expectancy and how it calculates leading causes of death.

Ah, yet another thready started by an Ancap trying to change the political spectrum to only recognize their favored ideology as free. That never gets old.

Anyway, to refute your argument:

As my signature hints, I tend to notice this most often with authoritarianism. So, let's talk about what authoritarianism is and what it isn't.

Authoritarianism IS:
- government interference in the private lives of citizens
- government interference in the economy, either through regulations or through taxes and spending

Mhm, do go on about any interference in the economy automatically makes a state authoritarian. Anyway, we do have another metric for economic regulations, its called economic freedom, it goes up when taxes are cut and the economy falls out of state control, it goes down when the opposite happens. You have that metric, don't try and force all stats to revolve around a ridiculous ancap version of reality.

What authoritarianism is NOT:
- the absence of democracy
- citizens defending their own life, liberty, and property against trespassers, squatters, illegal immigrants, etc. by whatever means they deem appropriate
- government making rules about the legitimate use of public property (example: arresting people when they block public roads as a form of protest)

What else is there?

Those are exactly what authoritarianism is. Cracking down on the rights of citizens, especially to protest is a sign of authoritarianism. State sanctioned murder of people to protect the property interests of the elite is a potential sign of authoritarianism. Additionally, it is worth noting that you have already posited that state interference in the economy is authoritarianism, therefore government ownership of property is authoritarianism. As a result the state even owning public property is authoritarianism.

In summation, the world is not ancappistan, the state taking any economic stance other than lasseiz faire is not authoritarianism. And we already have a measurement of state interference in the economy called economic freedom, therefore your argument is shit.

[Trotterdam]

According to your signature, banning it would be the authoritarian option

Again, wrong. Read very, very carefully and apply basic logic.

I guess your signature might be meant to say that authoritarianism should decrease when the government stays out of something, but the government interfering rather than staying out might decrease authoritarianism even more? That is technically logically consistent with what you have said, but it is also a really stupid way of interpreting those words.

[Trithereon]

Keep trying, Trot. You'll get it eventually.

Ah, yet another thready started by an Ancap

Ah, yet another idiot who can't tell the difference between players' real-life political views and what they RP their nation as. Would your brain hurt less if I got on a different nation, like the one that's sacrificing all other stats on the altar of Weather?

Mhm, do go on about any interference in the economy automatically makes a state authoritarian. Anyway, we do have another metric for economic regulations, its called economic freedom, it goes up when taxes are cut and the economy falls out of state control, it goes down when the opposite happens. You have that metric, don't try and force all stats to revolve around a ridiculous ancap version of reality.

There are already tons of overlapping stats. HDI comes to mind, and I think economic output is basically the sum of all the individual economic sectors and industries.

Those are exactly what authoritarianism is. Cracking down on the rights of citizens, especially to protest is a sign of authoritarianism.

That wasn't on the list.

State sanctioned murder of people to protect the property interests of the elite

Also not on the list.

Additionally, it is worth noting that you have already posited that state interference in the economy is authoritarianism, therefore government ownership of property is authoritarianism. As a result the state even owning public property is authoritarianism.

Wrong; the latter is not a logical conclusion of the former. In this particular case, although private roads can and do exist, there can never be such a thing as a free market in municipal road networks, which is one of many reasons why I agree that anarcho-capitalism would never work in real life.

[Jakker]

Ah, yet another idiot who can't tell the difference between players' real-life political views and what they RP their nation as. Would your brain hurt less if I got on a different nation, like the one that's sacrificing all other stats on the altar of Weather?

If you disagree with someone, focus on the argument and not on the player with name calling and questioning one's intelligence. I'd encourage you to read the forum rules: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=260044 *** Warned for Flaming ***

[Trotterdam]

Keep trying, Trot. You'll get it eventually.

I already get it. You are incorrect.

It is not my responsibility to make your point for you. If you want to convince people, you need to actually make a convincing argument, not insult people for not automatically figuring out your argument on their own.

I have explained, rather clearly, why your stated position is obviously contradicting itself. From your unwillingness to even attempt a counterargument, I must conclude that either you do not care enough about your position to bother defending it, or you already know deep down that you are wrong and are going to lose this debate and so are just stalling.

[Darnassus]

Jakker: That's fine but give PWA an official warning too, seeing as how he/she launched the first volley of personal attacks.

Trot: I'll give you a hint. "If X, then Y" does not imply "if the opposite of X, then the opposite of Y"

[Trotterdam]

Trot: I'll give you a hint. "If X, then Y" does not imply "if the opposite of X, then the opposite of Y"

It does when Y is a one-dimensional metric whose entire purpose is to measure to what degree X and things like X are happening. If you can lower Authoritarianism both by legalizing something and then by illegalizing the same thing, that would be easily abusable by just legalizing and illegalizing it over and over. Repealing a law should put your stats back to where they were before you passed the law in the first place (assuming no other law changes in the meantime). So yes, if enacting a particular policy should move Authoritarianism in a particular direction, then enacting the opposite policy should move Authoritarianism in the opposite direction. (Noting that "opposite policy" in this case means the exact logical inverse, so the opposite of "X is illegal" is "X is legal", not "X is mandatory". Both making something mandatory and making it illegal - or worded differently, both making it illegal to do a thing and making it illegal to not do the thing - are more authoritarian that giving people free choice in whether to do it or not.)

In logic situation where "if X then Y" holds while "if not-X then not-Y" indeed does not, it is because there is some correlation between X and Y, but it is not perfect, so there are other factors affecting whether and how X/not-X affects Y/not-Y. In which case, you will have to justify what those factors are that justify "banning neonatal genital mutilation" sometimes being an authoritarian action, but not always, even though allowing it is (explicitly, according to your signature, which says "every time", not just "most times") a non-authoritarian action in all circumstances.

I suppose the "make it mandatory" option could explain it. If neonatal genital mutilation was previously mandatory and enforced on all people by the government, then changing the law to banning it instead would still in some sense be giving people a freedom they didn't have before (namely, the freedom to not do it), even though it also takes away their previous freedom. In this specific circumstance, banning neonatal genital mutilation could indeed be considered to not make your nation more authoritarian (and arguably make it less so, depending on how you weight different freedoms), even though it is still relatively authoritarian compared to the government minding its own business.

So if that's what you meant, then congratulations, you could have just said so. If it's not, then you're still wrong.

Also, it's irrelevant because I'm pretty sure that there is no issue in the game that allows you to make such a thing mandatory.

[Trithereon]

If you can lower Authoritarianism both by legalizing something and then by illegalizing the same thing, that would be easily abusable by just legalizing and illegalizing it over and over.

This is a thing that you can already do in NS for a wide variety of stats. It's how some countries have over 4,000 weather.

[Pencil Sharpeners 2]

If you can lower Authoritarianism both by legalizing something and then by illegalizing the same thing, that would be easily abusable by just legalizing and illegalizing it over and over.

This is a thing that you can already do in NS for a wide variety of stats. It's how some countries have over 4,000 weather.

I'm pretty sure that legalising and illegalising policies is not how high weather stats are achieved. Weather is secondary stat that is entirely dependent on environmental beauty, culture, and ignorance.

[Trithereon]

Nope, weather is 100% independent of any other stats. The only other stat with this property is culture.

[Trithereon]

... what individual industries do? I have a state dedicated to pure GDP wanking but its only industries that consistently improve over time are IT, retail, and I think beverage sales. The others bounce up and down with no long-term trend.

[Trotterdam]

Nope, weather is 100% independent of any other stats. The only other stat with this property is culture.

This is incorrect.

It is, in fact, hilariously, ironically, incorrect, because Weather is dependent on, among other things, Culture, a fact which is very easily visible and has also been acknowledged as true by the game staff.

There are more factors that the ones Pencil Sharpeners 2 gave, though those three are valid.

You are right about Culture being independent, though. I guess even you can't be wrong all of the time.